Humanities desk | ||
---|---|---|
< April 10 | << Mar | April | May >> | April 12 > |
Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives |
---|
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages. |
Are there any cities with a monarch whereby the monarch rules only that city? Also, are there nominal examples of such a city; i.e. whereby the monarch only reigns over the city in a nominal/de-jure-only way? 92.2.64.31 ( talk) 14:26, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
Yes it's complicated. For example, the United Arab Emirates is federation made up of seven absolute monarchies. Malaysia is a federation made up of several states and federal territories. Several of the states are parliamentary constitutional monarchies. In neither case are any of the monarchies cities only although there's no reason why it's not possible and the Emirate of Ajman is fairly small and most of the population is in the city. (Actually I think the later is true for most of the emirates.)
Of course, it's also true in neither case does the monarch have zero involvement in the rule of the wider federation. In Malaysia, one of the monarchs is elected by the all of the monarchs to be the constitutional monarchy of the federation. In the UAE, the President of the United Arab Emirates is also nominally elected by the monarchs, but current convention is the Emir of Abu Dhabi is always the president I think in part due to the economic dominance of the Emirate of Abu Dhabi. The monarchs also form the Federal Supreme Council.
I think having an absolute monarchy where the monarch rules the city but has no involvement in the federation the city is part of would be a bit weird. Although I guess you could have one where the federation requires democracy for the federal government but not the state ones where this would sort of work.
More likely, would be something fitting the OP's last question. It's easy to imagine a system like Malaysia where you have a largely figurehead monarch for a city-state, but the federation itself becomes a republic perhaps with a largely figurehead elected president, and so the monarch has no real involvement in what goes on in the wider federation. I mean Singapore was once part of Malaysia and although not a monarch I guess you could imagine a world where it was. (NB the current system in Malaysia with some of the states means the monarch has more involvement than the UK for example.)
Humanities desk | ||
---|---|---|
< April 10 | << Mar | April | May >> | April 12 > |
Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives |
---|
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages. |
Are there any cities with a monarch whereby the monarch rules only that city? Also, are there nominal examples of such a city; i.e. whereby the monarch only reigns over the city in a nominal/de-jure-only way? 92.2.64.31 ( talk) 14:26, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
Yes it's complicated. For example, the United Arab Emirates is federation made up of seven absolute monarchies. Malaysia is a federation made up of several states and federal territories. Several of the states are parliamentary constitutional monarchies. In neither case are any of the monarchies cities only although there's no reason why it's not possible and the Emirate of Ajman is fairly small and most of the population is in the city. (Actually I think the later is true for most of the emirates.)
Of course, it's also true in neither case does the monarch have zero involvement in the rule of the wider federation. In Malaysia, one of the monarchs is elected by the all of the monarchs to be the constitutional monarchy of the federation. In the UAE, the President of the United Arab Emirates is also nominally elected by the monarchs, but current convention is the Emir of Abu Dhabi is always the president I think in part due to the economic dominance of the Emirate of Abu Dhabi. The monarchs also form the Federal Supreme Council.
I think having an absolute monarchy where the monarch rules the city but has no involvement in the federation the city is part of would be a bit weird. Although I guess you could have one where the federation requires democracy for the federal government but not the state ones where this would sort of work.
More likely, would be something fitting the OP's last question. It's easy to imagine a system like Malaysia where you have a largely figurehead monarch for a city-state, but the federation itself becomes a republic perhaps with a largely figurehead elected president, and so the monarch has no real involvement in what goes on in the wider federation. I mean Singapore was once part of Malaysia and although not a monarch I guess you could imagine a world where it was. (NB the current system in Malaysia with some of the states means the monarch has more involvement than the UK for example.)